WAYCOOL wrote:StillFingerz wrote:
Given the lateness of the 7D upgrade, perhaps the 6D is the last of the .25 fab process and subsequent bodies will be based on the new .18 fab...only time will tell, I'm thinkin 2014 might be an interesting year, maybe even an updated M with a viewfinder, faster AF

Canon uses a much larger fab process than .25, hoping that when they use the new rumored technology it is backlit as well as smaller.

they actually made the CFA array even MORE color-blind than on the 5D3

What do you mean by "color-blind"? Inaccurate colors? De-saturated colors?

The more color-blind the more you need to amp to get the same saturation so you get worse Chroma SNR (at the same time you get better Luma SNR). And it means the more color-blind the camera is the less subtle differences in certain shades that it can distinguish it might just show two very subtly different shades as the same one or maybe block up deep shadow colors all into one single blob of a color.

The real world results can be complex, a cam with a lower score might do a bit better for some colors than one with a higher score, it depends and it depends what colors matter more to you.

I suppose it might also have the potential for two very different colors to register as the same color but probably not too much of that.

I don't know how much 69 vs 74 vs 85 is though. Haven't looked into the scale.
Maybe it's a lot maybe it's very little.

All the 1DX/5D3/6D curves are so close I seriously doubt the impact is significant.

This is nowhere like the difference between Canon vs Nikon DR curves.

Old guys like me still think I can make better images on Velvia than I can with any digital sensor and it has, what, maybe 6 stops of DR at best (?), so comments like this implying that there's some massive difference in quality between 12 and 14 stops of DR just blow my mind!

Wish I understood what the differences were between 69, 75, and 85 though. No idea what that means (and it's not clear to me that anyone else knows either). I do feel like digital sensors (all of them) have color issues. Sometimes I wish that the Canon's and Nikons of the world would stop fighting over dynamic range and megapixels and just try to make a sensor that made really nice photographs.

All the 1DX/5D3/6D curves are so close I seriously doubt the impact is significant.

This is nowhere like the difference between Canon vs Nikon DR curves.

Old guys like me still think I can make better images on Velvia than I can with any digital sensor and it has, what, maybe 6 stops of DR at best (?), so comments like this implying that there's some massive difference in quality between 12 and 14 stops of DR just blow my mind!

Sorry, no comparison in DR or IQ. Velvia had about 4-5 stops DR and you had to stay at ISO 50 or ISO 100.

I still talk to people that say carburettors are better than fuel injection and love the snap, crackle and pop of vinyl records and the warm and fuzzy feeling it gives them to hear all that hiss ...

cputeqRegistered: Jun 25, 2008Total Posts: 5106Country: United States

curious80 wrote:

... , but I don't know how many of those who are complaining about this sensor actually make use of 13 or 14 EV DR in their pictures. My Sony NEX-5N with 12 EV of DR already has so much room to pull out shadows that unless I am careful with my processing I can easily get my photos to start looking like HDRs. With 12 EV you are already getting into fairly deep shadows and the 13th and 14th stops are really really deep shadows - the range which most people will turn into black anyway. In reality I suspect that for most users the high ISO advantage has more practical value than the extra 2 stops of ultra-deep shadows.

Well, pretty much any landscape photographer is going to love an extra 2 EV in DR, which is huge. Sure, not every landscape shot needs it, as sometimes the DR of the scene isn't that great, but many times it can be pretty large. Having an extra 2 EV to play with is much better than not having it - so the 6D (or really any Canon camera) isn't exactly the best for landscapers (talking sensor only - lenses perhaps change this standing).

It's also not just about pulling up the shadows, but the quality you get when you can do so. Sony's sensors are currently stomping Canon when it comes to this capability. Again, certainly not needed in every shot, but it's really nice to be able to drastically alter a file or "save" a shot without horrible shadow banding, etc. Pile this on top of 2 EV DR, and it's easy to see why some people are frustrated at Canon's sensor performance.

All that said, I'm still looking to return to Canon when I move back into DSLRs -- I like their lens lineup better. It's just too bad Canon doesn't have its own D600, though I'd trade the 6D's wifi and GPS for better AF and dual card slots any day.

Yes I'd like 2ev more dr but its something I can live without, if you need more dr then there are plenty of techniques to get it most of the time and often 2 stops isnt enough to remove the need to do something else about it.

lanierbRegistered: Jan 13, 2013Total Posts: 4Country: N/A

Pixel Perfect wrote:lanierb wrote:
Old guys like me still think I can make better images on Velvia than I can with any digital sensor and it has, what, maybe 6 stops of DR at best (?), so comments like this implying that there's some massive difference in quality between 12 and 14 stops of DR just blow my mind!

Sorry, no comparison in DR or IQ. Velvia had about 4-5 stops DR and you had to stay at ISO 50 or ISO 100.

I still talk to people that say carburettors are better than fuel injection and love the snap, crackle and pop of vinyl records and the warm and fuzzy feeling it gives them to hear all that hiss ...
Don't get me wrong. The digital cameras of today are amazing in what they can do. What I meant was that I feel like we're still missing something in color reproduction relative to what we used to have, and rather than push DR from 14 to 15 stops I'd prefer that Canon/Nikon/Sony work on that instead. I use digital exclusively like everyone else, because it's cheaper and easier and very good at some things, but there's still nothing like pulling out those old beautiful chromes, especially those 6x7s and 4x5s (with a mere 5-6 stops of DR).

DxOMark lost any and all credibility when it considered the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (Mark I) lens a better lens than its Mark II successor. I don't believe a word they say.

HulotRegistered: Jan 22, 2012Total Posts: 241Country: N/A

Sensors have improved a lot over the years, I am also very happy about color reproduction even at hi ISO. Besides you can make a digital file look like Velvia but you can't make Velvia look like a digital file!

cputeqRegistered: Jun 25, 2008Total Posts: 5106Country: United States

Todd Klassy wrote:
DxOMark lost any and all credibility when it considered the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (Mark I) lens a better lens than its Mark II successor. I don't believe a word they say.

I'm not aware of their specific lens testing methodology, but could it be possible they just had a "magic" copy of the V1 and a sub-par copy of the V2? There is always the chance of data point outliers in any situation, and perhaps that review happens to prove the point.

Again, not familiar with how they test or how many copies, just brining up the question.

dehowieRegistered: Oct 22, 2004Total Posts: 1070Country: Australia

As for lenses the Canon 400/2.8 II and Nikon 400/2.8 are rated worse than most consumer zooms..
Yep that makes sense!
The words ridiculous,rubbish and garbage come to mind..and im not talking about the lenses!

chezRegistered: Nov 26, 2003Total Posts: 9253Country: Canada

dehowie wrote:
As for lenses the Canon 400/2.8 II and Nikon 400/2.8 are rated worse than most consumer zooms..
Yep that makes sense!
The words ridiculous,rubbish and garbage come to mind..and im not talking about the lenses!

I don't look at their lens tests, but their sensor tests are done very well. Get past looking at their grade and look at the actual tests. They make perfect sense and the results line up with what is being experienced in actual images.

cputeq wrote:
I'm not aware of their specific lens testing methodology, but could it be possible they just had a "magic" copy of the V1 and a sub-par copy of the V2? There is always the chance of data point outliers in any situation, and perhaps that review happens to prove the point.

Valid question, but it doesn't change the fact that it makes their test results highly suspect. When you have a new lens with an MTF chart that surpasses its predecessor and you don't question your own test results, there is a problem with your methodology. When you test only one unit and take test results from just that one unit, there is a problem with your methodology. And when you present your data as scientific facts, despite using flawed testing methods, there is a problem with your product.

I don't trust them, and frankly, I don't think anyone else should either.

Definitely hard to understand their final grades sometimes. I was comparing the best low light sports sensors and thought the 1DX/D800E comparison was odd. The final grade gives the D800E a 2979 vs. 2786 advantage but when you look at the graphs the 1DX looks to be better in most of the measurements and equal in the rest. The only place where the D800E is better is in low ISO DR but is that really a useful metric in low light sports? Kind of strange.

dehowieRegistered: Oct 22, 2004Total Posts: 1070Country: Australia

chez wrote:dehowie wrote:
As for lenses the Canon 400/2.8 II and Nikon 400/2.8 are rated worse than most consumer zooms..
Yep that makes sense!
The words ridiculous,rubbish and garbage come to mind..and im not talking about the lenses!

I don't look at their lens tests, but their sensor tests are done very well. Get past looking at their grade and look at the actual tests. They make perfect sense and the results line up with what is being experienced in actual images.

Why should we "get past" there tests??
This is an organization claiming and being put up at Holyer than thou level by mre people than i can point ten sticks at.
Based on there lens testing methodology and results which lead to simply wrong, ridiculous and completely innacurate results why would anyone place any faith in the rating system for sensors.
Sure the tests may be good but the way they grade each test is hidden to obain final scores.
There lens tests results are a joke,there sensor tests are collated for base ISO because nobody ever shoots above ISO 100(lol) why would anyone place faith in them..

chez wrote:dehowie wrote:
As for lenses the Canon 400/2.8 II and Nikon 400/2.8 are rated worse than most consumer zooms..
Yep that makes sense!
The words ridiculous,rubbish and garbage come to mind..and im not talking about the lenses!

I don't look at their lens tests, but their sensor tests are done very well. Get past looking at their grade and look at the actual tests. They make perfect sense and the results line up with what is being experienced in actual images.

Why should we get past their grades if the tests are well done And why would they rate the D800 as much better than the 1DX for low light sport shooting if the tests where good